lestatdark said:
Player1x3 said:
lestatdark said:
DélioPT said:
The world was more devided than it is now and there`s a "push" for unity at the expense of "individuality", so it could be easier to control the masses. And you know, Satan is the false light that many will follow as to feel empowered - one way or the other.
Prophecies have also existed to this day like the Marian apparitions - which people should carefuly read. |
Kinda ironic that you put it in those terms, when it was cristianity itself during the dark ages that almost destroyed the individuality for much easier control of the masses. The crusades, the inquisition, the witch trials, hundreds of thousands killed in the name of trying to annul everything that was different and that didn't mold itself by the christian thought and moral code.
Have a look at how humanity suffered a massive technological, ideological and even humanitarian downgrade after the fall of the Roman/Greek ideology and rise of the christian ideology. That is why I sincerely scoff at these kind of religious claims that the christian message is the one true message and that everything had been predicted and prophecized by them. Were christianity to have won over the scientific advance during the age of enlightment, we wouldn't have this conversation now.
|
Actually, it was the christian church that is responsible for it. Are you one of those people that cant see the diference between religious institution and the religion itself? Than n wonder why you hate Christianity that much. Also, catholic church was responsible for the most scientific advantiges during the 11th-16th century. Also, lots of important scientists during middle ages and afterwards were christian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
And I fail to see how Roman era was any better than Christian one, except for being a lot more open minded about sexuality of people. You also fail to see the difference between eastern orthodox church,protestant church and catholic. The first 2 have a lot less blood on thier hands and they both advertise(because thats what the church is : an ad for a specific religion) Christianity.Its stupid to choose to see only bad parts of one church and ignore all the good sides of it and its achivments, unless you seek to have negative impression of it. You also fail hardly to understand the real christian message.
|
Ah, just because I have some negative impressions of Christianity, you think that I hate it? I really have no hate for christianity nor for any other religion as well, as each one has it's own importance for it's believers. I come from a heavy christian background, with my grandparents being some very strong believers so I'm well versed in a lot of matters about it.
Fair enough. But I still wonder how can someone who comes froam a heavy christian background not know the most basic teachings and messages of Christianity, unless of course you just choose to rebel against it and see only the parts you dont like about it.
It's odd that you point out that list, when you can clearly see that (especially on the 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th century) most scientific advancements were either adaptations of arabic and greek texts or just dissemination of former knowledge. It's not only until the 15th and 16th century that actual new scientific knowledge is formed. And really, a list that puts Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton and especially figures such as Pascal, Galileu and Descartes all of those who came in direct conflict with the church (some even having their works banned by the church) labelled christian thinkers as if christianity had a role to play in their discoveries is faulty, at best.
Why does one need to be favoured by the church to be called a real Christian? That list shows important christian thinkers, not christian thinkers favoured by the church. Galileo was clearly a christian, yet he had conflicts with the church. And my whole point was to prove that Christianity didnt downgrade science like you said, it only helped perserve it. Heck, in most areas it was the only source of knowledge available (across Europe and Little Asia)
I don't seek to have neither a good nor a bad impression about it, I just try to look at all the facts. And in the scientific circles, the great impact of the christian/catholic church in scientific advance/degradation is heavily debated.
Like Kazs said before, it wasnt the rise of Christianity that caused DarkAges (Christianity existed 1000 years before Dark Ages even started), it was the fall of Roman Empire, and all the less civilzed people coming to power (Gauls, Germans, Celts, Visgoths, Slavs) Romans used to controll most of Europe, western Asia and norhtenr Afrika, and thus making traveling, information keeping and perserving the knowledge of the humans much easier, not to mention keeping peace and allowing humanity to foucus more on its progress rather than on war. You know, there is a reason why italy was the one that started the Rennesanse and why most of most important scholars and scientist during the 2nd milenium were Italians.
You want to know what things were better during the Roman Era than in the Christian one? Let's just start with mathematical knowledge. Or how about a basic sanitation system, which in the catholic era was only available to the church and the nobles. How about access to knowledge to the overall population and not restricted to one circle only. How about the preservation of the arts and culture and proper divulgation about it and not considering it an abominable thing? The list can go on (especially if you compare the classical greek era to the christian one), but to say that the roman era was at least equal to the christian one is a disservice to knowledge and history itself.
I highly doubt your averige roman citizen was more knowledgeable of the world that your averige roman citizen was during the christian era. You also forgot to mention all the barbaric social norms Christianity put an end to in italy, such as slavery and sacrifaces of animals and humans, as well as pagan witchcraft practices
|
